On 17/02/11 11:08, Harish Narayanan wrote: > On 2/17/11 11:56 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >> >> On 17/02/11 10:27, Harish Narayanan wrote: >>> Dear FEniCS enthusiasts, >>> >>> I am going to reiterate a concern that I tried to bring up earlier >>> regarding the copyright consent forms. Please chime in with your views. >>> >>> I understand the rationale behind using LGPL for core FEniCS components >>> (e.g. DOLFIN and FFC). It makes sense to me that these projects could >>> form a part of future (potentially proprietary) applications. The >>> developers of such applications clearly have to bring in a lot of >>> domain-specific knowledge. I can see why they might want to keep such >>> knowledge proprietary, and I can see how moving to LGPL brings them into >>> the community at least as users of FEniCS. >>> >>> But the same logic doesn't hold (in my mind) for FEniCS Apps. Some of >>> these function reasonably well and are already capable of solving select >>> domain-specific problems. Aren't they, in a sense, closer to complete, >>> immediately useful applications? Given this, does it make sense that >>> they too should be released under LGPL? What is then to prevent someone >>> from, say, slapping a GUI on a well-functioning solver and selling it as >>> a tool? >>> >> >> I'm not sure what you're advocating. That FEniCS Apps should be GPL? > > Yes, or at least be left to the developer's choice. I am not keen on > past contributions to FEniCS Apps under GPL now suddenly being > transferred to LGPL. >
I'm perfectly happy with FEniCS Apps developers choosing for themselves between GPL and LGPL. I thought that this was the present situation? Garth > Harish _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fenics Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fenics More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
